:There will be cost savings across the energy system, but the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Treasury will look at the impact on energy bills. There will be cost savings across the system and, if there are cost savings for the generators, I would expect them to be passed on to bill payers. However, that is not for the Scottish Government to decide—it is for the UK Government.

:Do you want their name?

:No, the number of non-executive directors will remain at the same level as it is now.

:It is Steve Dickson.

:That is an operational matter for Scottish Water as the employer. It currently employs nearly 5,000 staff. If it expands its operations, expanding the number of its employees is up to Scottish Water. All 5,000 staff continue to benefit from being part of the public sector pay policy. It is not right to say that the work, pay and conditions are not fair.

:The chief executive officer will be responsible for those issues.

I am a little confused. No concerns on that decision were raised with me by WICS. In fact, it is quite unusual for public bodies to have three separate executive roles. Scottish Water is being brought more into line with other public bodies.

I also want to reflect on having a member to specifically represent employee interests. The STUC was directly consulted on the appointment of that person. It commented on the scope of the role in 2020, before that was last advertised. The member was reappointed in 2025. Committee members want to know more about the credentials of that member. I am happy to liaise with Scottish Water and get it to give the committee that information. That seems to be the substantive ask of committee members—that you should know a little more about the credentials of the member with responsibility for employee interests.

:I will bring in James Simpson, because WICS has not raised anything—

In practice, the governance associated with the process is still the normal consent process, which is about the habitats regulations and the compensatory part of any kind of application for consent. As at the moment, developers will have to produce plans on what they intend to compensate on and the data associated with that, but the difference is that they will be able to include wider measures.

The hierarchy is very important in that process: at the top, developers must consider like-for-like measures wherever possible and applicable, but those measures might be augmented by other measures in tiers 2 and 3 of the hierarchy. The marine directorate consents unit will analyse all the data and plans that are put forward. Developers will be able to get advice on that from the marine directorate and also from NatureScot.

Developers can put forward their own plans, and their application will be judged on those plans, but they can also apply to the Scottish marine recovery fund. There is a strategic recovery fund for the whole of Scotland that will enable large-scale and strategic projects to take place. [Gillian Martin has corrected this contribution. See end of report.] There will be a range of particular workstreams that might be able to be applied to and funded as part of that.

The decisions, which are made on the habitats regulations and will have due regard to the hierarchy, will still be made by the marine directorate licensing operations team—MDLOT—but will come to ministers, along with all the advice, as is usual.

Biodiversity loss is happening across many parts of the food chain, particularly those associated with seabirds. As data improves and science develops, I imagine that we might be able to take more suites of measures to protect seabirds from the various stresses that they face. That sharing of knowledge will be very important. Also, as I said, we will look every five years at whether the approach is workable, which is really important.

You make an important point. Obviously, there is some work that can be done now on a like-for-like basis. Will those measures be sufficient to stop the decline in the seabird population? Possibly not, but other measures may come through that might have an impact on the seabird population. This is way into the future, but we could even be looking at some strategic stuff around the impacts of avian flu, for example. Predator eradication and invasive species work is very time-consuming and costly and will take decades to keep on top of. Managing and eradicating invasive species will not be fixed in the next five years—it will require constant maintenance. That is like-for-like work.

Moreover, mitigation will not have to happen only in the geographical area where the development is. It could happen across Scotland, in any area in which a particular type of species is nesting, breeding or feeding. There will be quite a lot of scope.

The other thing is that it is about the entire UK marine protected area network. We are further ahead in our marine protected areas in Scotland, but species do not care about borders. Where they are and where they move to could be any part of the UK waters. That is why the strategic approach might yield more ambition in relation to taking away the stressors to marine life.

What you have highlighted is extremely important. Some of the ENGOs might be reticent about the regulations, but they have to be in the room, along with all the stakeholders that are associated with the marine environment. One major advantage of that is that the ENGOs and the associated scientific community will be able to work with us on the compensatory measures.

At the moment, the hierarchy is a proposal. We have not bottomed out all the actions that might be in the hierarchy, but the actions that are associated with all tiers of the hierarchy will be done in consultation with all stakeholders. Where there is an ability in the future to redevelop the hierarchy—the instrument will be reviewed every five years—we will be able to constantly analyse how the compensatory measures are working and whether we can do anything more. We might be able to add additional actions to certain tiers of the hierarchy. Given that there will be a marine recovery fund, the chances are that there will be an awful lot more funding associated with doing some of the bigger interventions. Every stakeholder that is associated with the marine environment needs to be around the table, because we cannot go forward without all that expertise.